get_order_history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The phrase 'Get recent' hints at read-only but isn't explicit, leaving gaps in safety and operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get recent order history for a symbol (all statuses)') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (historical data retrieval), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on authentication, rate limits, or data recency, which are important for an order history tool in a trading environment. The output schema reduces need to explain returns, but behavioral gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (symbol and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for 'recent' or status filtering details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent order history for a symbol'), specifying scope with 'all statuses'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_open_orders (which filters by open status) and get_order (which retrieves a single order), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by mentioning 'all statuses', suggesting this tool is for comprehensive historical retrieval rather than filtered views. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_open_orders or get_order, nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or rate limits.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.